Theo Verelst Diary Page

Wed Dec 13 2001, 2:41 AM

I've decided after good example to write some diary pages with toughts
and events.

Oh, in case anybody fails to understand, I'd like to remind them that
these pages are copyrighted, and that everything found here may not be redistributed
in any other way then over this direct link without my prior consent. That
includes family, christianity, and other cheats. The simple reason is that
it may well be that some people have been ill informed because they've spread
illegal 'copies' of my materials even with modifications. Apart from my moral
judgement, that is illegal, and will be treated as such by me. Make as many
references to these pages as you like, make hardcopies, but only of the whole
page, including the html-references, and without changing a iota or tittel...

And if not? I won't hesitate to use legal means to correct wrong that
may be done otherwise. And I am serious. I usually am. I'm not sure I could
get 'attempt to grave emotional assault' out of it, but infrigement on copyright
rules is serious enough. And Jesus called upon us to respect the authorities
of state, so christians would of course never do such a thing. Lying, imagine
that.

Wed Dec 13 2001, 2:41

I just put up a link to the last diary page, which was on, but had to
be guessed at by hand-incrementing the page number in the url. The page wasn'nt
complete, but after a few additions and corrections I've put it on as I'd
made it, and it has relevance in subject sense enough. I wanted to be carefull
to be clear about what exactly I put forward and commit myself to in the
sense of writing to a general audience and making points I indeed would
defend.

That has to do with wanting to be taken serious to the point of having
accepted enough the main points I belief are important, with a weight involved
which is considerable in various ways, which I think I work at in daily (almost
financially at the zero line) life, and which I in the past have found the
only way to get out of some miserably traps in my life.

I don't always like what I live like or want to stand for or belief in,
for instance when I belief that the damnation that goes with rejecting the
gospel Paul and Peter and John preached is serious, and that everyone who,
even unknowingly, would have another good news message is said to be damned
by that. I belief that is true, and that it is therefore wise not to want
to tempt God by assuming it is smarter to willingly play the dumb layman
and reject better judgement from reliable enough persons.

I'm listening to the swaggert internet radio feed, which is not always
good, but in general I seem to bear with what he does, the other speakers
I switch of pretty soon, including his wife, for intuitive, and probably
contentwise reasons. What am I? I for years witnessed 'christians', some
without the quotes, who have their little or big church or other group or
congregation, probably read some bible, engage in some worshippery (laten
we nog een hympy zingen), have there run of the mill (if the children are
lucky) little or big family, just like the rest of the far majority probably
of the earth, millions and millions, probably donate tithes to their chosen
charity or preacher or system, and suspect they in general will be taken
for the christians the new testament often talks about. Which unfortunately
is generally not true.

Swaggert just mentioned some of the subjects I literally wrote about such
as the historical price of our freedom, and even the coming into existence
of constantinople , which at least is good to hear about from from someone
with a known enough position and 'official' large audience. Which quite some
and some quite wannabe powerfull ones probably would not want me have, and
work against with quite some of their might. Which God may use again to expose
them, of course, but still.

Personally at least there are some persons around me regularly which I
like, some even more than that, which is one of the few main things in life
which make it worth while, when that all works. My god what a misery is created
and sometimes maintained in this life, and in this country, for those who
I to some extend love, or would want to, and probably for some I'd like to
see again, that without question is important maybe even to the point of
being decisive to be able to life with and or near them in a way I'd like
and find fitting enough. Which is all the more reason to at least want to
expose and make clear what I'm quite positive about and find fundamentally
formative. I remember my old 'professor' (a not nice memory association,
considering I more than a bit suspect that one and others are probably of
a child abusing kind I probably better should have killed before they were
ever born, without exageration, notice the word 'probably' is in that formulation,
but than again I've been treated crazy and/or bad enough to at least have
more than reasonable suspicion that they were bad and have much to hide)
produced and article about brain development in kittens, as in 'formative'
periods where brain 'plasticity' is good, that is where the connections and
patterns and structure in a kittens brain, for instance in the visual cortex
in phoetal phase, are formed, before they become more static. In the sense
of research that made some sense, for instance in connection with neural
networks, and because I'd been looking into the brain as a parallel computer
system, maybe even reading the hameroff 'ultimate computing' book about nanobiology,
and and after all I did have an interest in network theory's (the name of
the section at the time) in a broad and deep sense. The source was scientific
american or something, which doesn't call for special responses either, but
something about the choice of article, my later suspicions, and certain unfortunately
almost unmistable logic makes me think about wanting to impose marks of a
beast I don't even like to think about, and groups of imhumanes who at some
point have led to the actual enactment of nuclear physics where the cat comparison
had to do with a thoughtexperiment about quantum states and life and death
in practice.

What about that christian stuff, am I just being pissed I didn't receive
some decent kind of, more or less biblical, certainly in principal, confirmation
many years ago, when I considered myself an advanced but lifewise not so
forward electrical engineering firstyear and sparetime bibleschool student?
Because that together made my potential weight combined with my leading possibilities
made wannabees and person salesmen quite impossible in my environment in
normal line of their duty, and could easily enough be taken by me as being
hard to edify or deal in certain areas of life where I would have liked more
serious position and what goes with that, after being serious christian for
many years? No I don't think I'm pissed with that, I lived more than enough
and achieved more than enough to make me realy pissed in such a way, though
I am pissed with general christianity that they don't take up much at all
of what i've had to offer both decades ago and now, and in fact hald it against
them that, much like the scribes and their fruits, they take someone who
definately provably can do good is not 'given' anything much of real substance
at all in those areas where fellow believers should at least care somewhat.
And that is primarily about the content of what I be and do and work at,
and only secondary my own life, though why would that have to be so insane,
when they pray, and would listen to, the same God and Holy Spirit.

I'm sure there is such a holy, and truthfull in his oversight, Holy Spirit,
and that He does as the bible says, for instance convince of truth and judgement,
and that there are some who do listen, and the judgement and even damnation
He gives, permits and even wants are because of divine will, including many
failures of those who preach christ, even when out of envy or other bad motivations.
Also truly born again christians can fail, are tested, and can be rejected,
and even die when they step over various lines, which is not my prefered
way of looking at people like that in general, but it seems God deals with
things sometimes quite harsly, probably for reasons, looking at the middle
ages. Gods' hand is considered present in the work and the tangible in these
statements, which I often have not wanted to be all to elaborate about, probably
because intuitively I've been aware of the wrong which is in many and in
many circles, who don't deserve to have more possibilities to ascribe similar
power to their deamons and marys and neon Gods. Maybe like the firtilily
goddesses of old do not need to be endowed with contemporary medical knowledge
to make their existence interesting and seemingly noteworthy and knowledgeable
of essential things.

There are foundations in this word, lets say mainly in the western world
I've seen some parts of, which are not according to the gospel Jesus intended,
and it would be a bad idea to swallow those ideas just like the existance
of santa claus, and belief our present will be under the christmas tree without
human intervention. The family as cornerstone of society is a paradigm in
error I was quite aware of when after leaving christianship I had lets say
leftish interests. Not that I don't agree with the idea that a family place
where love, shelter, builup, sharpening and such good things exist is good
for a child and elders just the same, because that is easy to understand.
But many traditional families don't fulfill the basic conditions to be taken
for a serious unit in important ways, because they are not made of people
who should be together with such an idea, because the rites of life which
is assumed important in it aren't even worth considering much, as they include
the mammon, the baal and other similar things all along the way, and most
of all, the second and some other commandment cannot be taken to indicate
that the first is to be replaced by family logic. Let the dead burry their
dead, and who loves their families more than christ are not worthy of Him.
HIS words,
NOT mine. Will you pleace notice.

Paul left all he had, even though he probably had some inside knowledge
about some situations or victims which could probably have made his and some
of his surroudings positions better. Jesus didn't ask Mary to find him some
nice family arranged spouse to spend a year (or what was it) alone with according
to mosaic law, without obligations, as pointing at the 'horrible' idea to
get to know eachother in love without many external obligations, and to lead
him into all wonderfull areas of life where here father had betrayed her
some innocent victims life essence for, too. He told John to take care of
her when He was about to die, sometimes seems to have stayed at her house,
and basically seems to have led a free, though not moneyless live, all over
the chosen country, with at least some friends he was with most all day and
some he seems to have liked, various women being free to see and speak and
be with him it seems.

Peter doesn't call for lame subordinate intellectually insipid laymanship
and unprevented unbriddled child breeding and sacrifice of the masses and
inclusion of old marital rites into the believers life who took him serious
for his gospel, which seems not contradictory to Pauls. So unless we think
we now live in a different dispensation, or that God isn't interested in
His own commandments anymore because now everyone has their own car and tv
set, we'd better take it there is something to learn If or when we have acknowledged
that the catholic mideaval roots are NOT the roots of christianity accorcing
to the gospel of a crucified and risen Christ.

And when they are not, and God is indeed God and the Holy Spirit is His
and does realy exist, those who don't take such seriously may be in major
trouble. Realy major trouble, not with me, but with the same God who sort
of recklessly seems to in the end after many warning seems to have send the
natural israel, his chosen people, to miserable babylon in exile for centuries.
OT prophets are clear enough that God speaks the language of abusiveness
and paganism in ever shade of satanistic or demonic misery, and that He warns
about the need to not fall for sorecery, adultery against his spirit, idolatry,
witchcraft, soothsaying spirits, and all abusiness breaking the second and
lies and sneakyness and dishonesty and dishonour and offensiveness which
break the first, because His condamnationin the end is always worse, and
because it seems that the desing of man is not very well adapted to the various
damnation kinds such errors and sins bring about by themselves. When He starts
out being loving, as it seems with just a relatively small test (the delusion
of sin in the context of adam and eve is mentioned shortly in new testament
greek) involved, the breaking trust with Him capital H seems to be
completely and only and almost utterly not worth it and unbeneficial to the
other parties.

I've looked up 'wayang' in as it happens an enlish dictionary in a library,
which seems to indeed mean the puppets I had in mind, used as well for back
projection to make shadow plays on a screen. The are various variations indicated
by some additonal words to signify the principle of such puppets and their
use, the puppets as doll type artifacts, the idea of using the same principles
in life, and it seems that the puppets are normally made of cow skin (leather)
cut to the right shapes. Would ancestral bondages from the colonial age have
made it spiritually attractive to made dutchies live in emotional and lifewise
flatland because they believed that the gospel of limiting even the number
of dimensions their own lives and those of their loved or desired ones would
fit well with their world infamous scrougeness? I'm sure some newly patriated
after war, after independence indonesians where rich, too, and that their
wealth and exotic abuse victims with probably involontary room for such thinking
as desirable commodoties have been influential. And as every half smart wannabe
illumatist knows without question, when you appeal to man's most profound
desires or sensitive derangements, your potential of gaining power is probably
optimized in your advantage. Seriously, so I have to work on getting people
to understand that fundamentally cutting people, especially the ones with
more than average capabilities short, and messing up their normal response
patterns just a bit more in those directions every time a bit, thinking that
will please some satanists and evil world dominion suckers enough to maybe
want to make a simple egocentrical money greed scheme reversed in principle
but not in practice enough to make it seem they indeed would even want to
have positive effecton some curse related to it.

While the actual curse is Gods. "He who preaches another gospel than we
have, let him be accursed. And again I say ...'. 'From the beginning
of creation Gods judgement occupies itself with them,.. and their damnation
slumbereth not'.

At times it is good to consider that it is not the only way to look at
God as giving greate revivals and uplivings, but that it may well be we miss
an important eternal life important message when we don't understand that
He has reserved the right and uses it to damn when He sees fit, too. And
probably bad, too. For which I can imagine at least one good reason besides
just punishment, which is a warning that He does mean it when He makes clear
His laws commandments and even desires and likes. In other words that He
is not a pussy or sissy, but just has a larger mind and game of life than
any rothshield will ever understand or be allowed to behold or have profit
of. 'How great thou art'? Not realy, that's more like looking at the starts
and thinking to how few the technology of my lifetime would let me even visit,
let alone create or influence in some profoud way, or how on earth the human
organism can even have crawled out of its amoubal forms on its two feet with
all its developed systems functioning in a balance upset already by a simple
cold feever. Or how he manages to align all zillion to the power of a quadriollion
possibly involved quantum states to make up for a certain random number at
some point in time, being predicted from the starting point and initial state
of the universe or so. Soothsaying deamons, even when they such on prophecies
of the true source, usualy suck so bad not many are lame enough to want them
all too much in the end.

So is it any fun to play some great apostle in some high or mediocre christian
centres of activity with all those nice showers of mercy, lively an serious
prophets, loving elders and inspiring leaders? No in fact, by and large it
is not. Not that I can say I founded some great church to proof my method
works better, but then again that in such sense has never been my ambition
either, and probably I wouldn't get that much of what I want out of it, wither.
A rolls royce, maybe, when my converts would be rich and willing to tith
of their assets. Or be struck dead because they didn't put all at my feet
and leave some wonderfull inheritance to the charity 'moi', without them
even around anymore to annoy me sitting near my monopod, and maybe even competing
with me with all their riches. Gmph, I ain't no maharajhi. I was quite fine
enough with an interesting enough job, a car to put right enough together
myself, some people to like seriously, enough music to get around and an
amounf of freedom luckily completely legal and by and large even unchallenged
in this western society. If it wasn't for the frowns on umarried serious
relations from certain ideological pillars of non-truth, sleep tight mister
president (and have more than your picture torn in public non-mr pope), but
then again who takes such moral judgements as utterly authoritive or even
anying nowadays, we've had the 60's isn't it. As long as banks hand out business
loans to 'marital state: no's who have th nerve to even claim to be better
than the standard money games.

Today I've mentioned (to an economist) what occured to me various times
over a long time: the ideawise relevance of an economical model law which
states something like the idea that the amount of money flowing around in
society per unit time, or the velocity equals the average amount of money
involved in a transaction times the number of interactions per second. The
main relevance being the idea of thinking about that whole balance at that
level, which is healty enough physical basis, and the consequence of such
a model in quantative sense, which is where one may learn that when the value
of the assets is much higher then the above defined equilibrium, it is probably
a good idea not to be too interested in economical trade as a means to global
power which is not completely lame from the start. Because then the values
involved changing hands are probably not going to influence the rich and
powerfull by the money mechanism, and other means to desireble enough power
distribution must be found. And probably illuminati and rich families will
want to go to considerable lenght making clear to any deluded, provicial,
or otherwise limited person or group that realy we must not challenge the
great money deamon of greed and not tamper too much with the important principle
of power involved in that picture (uparche) because its the closest thing
to godhood they've ever held possible, and must be kept in holy esteem worthy
of the name of mammon. 'Vanity of vanities, everything is vanities, I looked
and saw there is nothing new under the sun'.

My daytime work has been leading me into making my desks' environment
hold a number of PC's, not retarded at all, though no 2GHz machines, 2 with
two network cards (speced I think also at 100Mb/s, though I didn't try that
as yet) having windows 2000 installed, a windows 95 machine, with some standard
applications, and a linux node, started as an experiment with suse from a
year ago or so because someone happened to have that CD around, which is
more than fun enough.

The 2000 servers are ticking away cycles fine enough, and share files
and network applications decent enough, though I do not exactly always appove
of or find humanly throughseeable the way security schemes are put up, some
is based on existing low level windows patches into networked cooperation,
some is on itself understandably enough user account based access control.
But than again, what is a user acount in their philosophy? Well, there is
a profile, and not even realy that much a home directory, and indeed, officially,
every ntfs (what does the T stand for) formatted file system allows setting
elaborate access rights for every file also per user, so in principle, it
is decently possible to set up user envs and have decent security and sharing,
but seriously, I'm not a computer novice, put even when applied not that
strangly, inheritance and many many file sharing possibitlities, even though
they are just bits (on or off) appear like a forrest rather than the idea
I would usually have about a unix file system, though I'd need to think where
preferences start and objective reasoning ends. Thinking for the time it
took to write this sentence (which is short enough), I suddenly a a great
impression based on a memory scan: putting those few bits per file in the
right state takes so much time, ladies and gentlemen, it may take like 10
seconds to change the permissions and some files, while my cygnus grep in
about half a second find all specified data form a textfile of 6 mega
bytes by simple brute force extensive search. The latter is progres and fine,
the former is feeling better then a computer py projected lameless which
is not progress. I didn't try chmod on a major linux filetree, but I'm sure
normally the operations there may not be as optimized as lets say a video
memory mask logical operation, but at least is smooth enough. And making
a new user in 2000 has similar aspects, seriously, how many types of system
operatos does one need? Who is ever going to remember that userc is able
to restart the webserver but not the (hm?) file replicator for instance while
workstation_operator_with_two_left_hands has the reverse permission (complete
nonsense, just to make an example about wieldy right and group possibilities
about which the type of remark is not non sense), while one has real things
to worry about, like how on earth one is going to do a decent kill as super
user system operator and m*f* installer of the whole machine when a service
does not err during startup, but also not actually report back to that wonderfull
600 megabytes of winnt code that it started up succesfully so that the on
itself sensible start/stop controls for services are all gray, instead of
leaving the stop option open for ghosted programs, while there is no process
id for these demon process equivalents, as far as I saw.

Probably I should get at least service pack 2 installed, but than still
the meanwhile would have left me with such problems and others meanwhile.
I wanted to have 'squid' on windows 2000 server to do proxy serving based
on opensource and elaborate enough configuration files it seems, though probably
I'll still like to do the same thing in tcl for the love of having the whole
thing in hand, which is just a bit at least tricky with socks5 and group
and udp access to streaming media servers. I'll see.

The linux as I said is more than fun enough, the suse desktops look decent
enough, there is the snow aplication, and seriously, <some strong word>,
I installed the free86 kit on a 2000 server with cygnus unix-like tools,
shell and gnu c compiler installed (up to compiling full blown 3d applications
efficiently), so it effectively runs an X-server and client under windows,
even with sources available, which works directly with scientific applicability
I'd say cooperates and exchanges X windows with the linux node easily enough
when one knows the DISPLAY variable. Running meteors over a 10baset hub makes
the network light not work overtime, which is fun enough. Tomorrow I'll see
if I can make linux use the unix stream access facilities and supposedly
real multiprocessing with effective kernel support for switching processing
on the basis of socket IO buffer states, preferably also applied to tcl.
Would their multitreading model feel just as straigh lisp like?

Getting samba or 'windows support for unix file systems' (3Mb course fine
from alias wantinnovation.com) neither way worked effective enough to share
files between windows and linux transparently, though in fact the lines files
appear neatly and easily enough in a windows ftp file window, no real problem.
And even on the linux console or some X window a supplied graphical ftp client
is capable of reasonably working together with the windows ftpd equivalent,
unlike the sort of minimally interfaces telnet, which suse xterms with telnet
don't like, and a the ftp root can be a partition root, though I didn't manage
making the whole set of discs, preferably also shares on other machines available.
The web server did do that trick, to make a CD on another node contain a
html file tree for serving. The tcl server works fine in general, and because
adding trees there is quite neat since one can use internal cgi-like functions,
which don't require external processes to be started and parameters to be
passed to and fro, quite flexible and powerfull.

Connecting the suse linux system with a 4 machine network wasn't hard,
in the sense of getting tcp/ip to run enough to make for instance my pcom
work, which gives instantaneous bidirectional graphical ftp-like functionality,
text transfer, and even remote commands, though the suse version I now tried
is not bug free, because I had hardcoded some DISPLAY environment setting
in a login script for use with xfree86, some things went wrong, but the results
were regularly that the whole system had to be restarted, and I've regularly
rebooted the thing over a networked shell using 'su', getting nothing but
vertical color bars on the console, even though the remote shell would allow
login after reboot.

I've been sparring with the 2000 network and computer management setup
windows, and made another domain, a forrest, in fact, next to an existing
one, with the idea of interfacing a small intranet with the existing bigger
one to do tests concerning security, efficiency, and routing over the boundary,
which I in general find far from satisfactory. Why would one want a file
replicating system when various distributed file system kinds are supported?
Get me some compess, tar, diff and smart fragmenter/defragmenter tools, that
would be fun enough, copying files every now and then is not a fun enough
idea imnsho. Adding another domain partaker and a new domain with it seems
to make existing domain controllers prone to make more than a few controllable
options available for adjustment, including adding users and rights, which
is fun enough to have distributed central user and node management, but I
guess in general one will want to close that up unless explicitly opened.
The whole idea set in these areas is sensible enough from outset, but the
amount of windows and their meaning is quite fuzzy a times, unfortunately.

Linux has squid, too, and I had it running by one 'vi ~/.squid.conf' and
a '/usr/bin(or so)/squid ~/.squidconf &' just like that, and checking
with 'ps -aef | grep squid' answering with the expected two lines, or seeing
the graphical process window reflect the existance of a new process, though
at this point it doesn't proxy at least no major startup errors occured.
I have a seperate 2000 server with an isdn link with unintervened access
to the outside world, which is reasonable enough, except how am I going to
tell all browsers to go to the linux node, which then on request must call
that service, which changed IP client address at every new call, and then
have the other 2000 server route browser requiest from the corporate network
to the small one having all this work, too. In fact: easy enough: a handfull
of sockets and IP adresses routed to a fixed IP node, proxy server addressed
automatically or hand adjusted to the routed IP address with correct ports,
and the internet access node accessed by name through dns table, hopefully
distinguishing correctly between network lookup and mangement broadcasts
which should not flow over to the web provider, and genuine enough but sometimes
windows interface ignored realplayer streams exceeding the connection time
set after the latest http access? Huh, well? That is sort of to say, I know
what I want, and my basics don't leave me anywhere it seems, but how the
hell am I going to tell all those *wonderfull* softwares what on earth I
want, and how simple that is, in fact.